Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 619
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
AMIT RAWAL, K.V. JAYAKUMAR, JJ.
Union Of India, Represented By The General Manager, Southern Railway and Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
M. Sivakumar, S/o. P. Manickam and Ors. – Respondents
OP (CAT) No. 296 Of 2019 and connected cases
Decided On : 04-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : BY ADV C.DINESH
For the Respondent: BY ADV SRI.MARTIN G.THOTTAN
IMPORTANT POINT
Employees classified as 'Continuous' are entitled to overtime allowance for hours worked beyond the stipulated rostered hours, as per Rule 10 of the Railway Servants Rules.
Headnote:
(A) Railway Servants (Hours of Work and Period of Rest) Rules, 2005 - Rule 10 - Overtime allowance - AC Technicians/AC Coach Attendants of Southern Railway sought overtime allowance for duties exceeding 96 hours in a fortnight - Tribunal ruled in favor of applicants, confirming entitlement to overtime as per established rules - Modified roster implementation was found to violate uniformity in overtime payment across divisions. (Paras 2 - 11 )
(B) Legal Principle - Employees classified as 'Continuous' are entitled to overtime allowance for extra hours worked beyond the stipulated rostered hours, as per Rule 10 of the Railway Servants Rules. (Paras 9 - 10 )
Facts of the case:
The applicants, AC Technicians/AC Coach Attendants, claimed overtime allowance for work exceeding 96 hours in a fortnight, which was denied under a modified roster that provided compensatory rest instead.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the applicants are entitled to overtime allowance for hours worked beyond the rostered limit, directing the respondents to comply uniformly across divisions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the modified roster violated the entitlement to overtime allowance as per established rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the applicants are entitled to overtime allowance beyond the rostered hours, rejecting the modified roster's validity.
Result: OP(CAT)s dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(K.V. JAYAKUMAR, J.)
This judgment shall dispose of six original cases. The short question involved in this batch of OP(CAT)s is that, whether AC Technicians/AC Coach Attendants are entitled to overtime allowance for the duties performed by them in excess of 96 hours in a fortnight?.
2. Facts necessary for disposal of these OP(CAT)s in brief are enumerated hereunder:
The respondents/applicants are AC Technicians/AC Coach Attendants of Southern Railway. The Tribunal was approached seeking a declaration that, they are entitled for overtime allowance for the duties performed by them in excess of 96 hours in a fortnight. The applicants are required to perform duty at 48 hours per week and 96 hours for two weeks. Over and above 96 hours of work, in a fortnight, the respondents/applicants are entitled for overtime allowance as provided under the Rules. However, in view of the Modified Roster issued by the 7th respondent/Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer, which was implemented only in Trivandrum division, the AC staff will have to work 48 hours per week and 96 hours in two weeks and instead of overtime allowance, they would get Compensatory Rest for extra works of duty performed, in excess of 96 hours of duty and for forgoing their statutory weekly rest in violation of hours of duty and period of rest rules.
3. Aggrieved by the aforementioned Modified Roster, the AC Technicians/applicants submitted representations, but there was no positive response from the Southern Railway. Though the applicants have performed extra hours of duty, they were denied overtime allowance on the pretext that compensatory rest was granted to them.
4. A batch of similarly placed employees, aggrieved by the aforesaid Modified Roster, approached the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal and filed OA 1158/2012 and the same was allowed as per order dated 12.04.2013 (Annexure-A1). The petitioners/Southern Railway and its officers preferred writ petition before the Madras High Court and thereafter, SLP before the Apex Court challenging Annexure-A1 order, but the writ petition and SLP were dismissed.
5. The contention of the respondents/applicants was that, the issue of overtime allowance involved in these matters are no longer res integra in view of the dismissal of the OP(CAT) and the SLP.
6. The relevant paragraphs of Annexure-A1 order are extracted hereunder:
“9. There is no dispute that the applicants are coming under the staff category classified as "Continuous" and they are entitled for Over Time Allowance as per Rule 10 of Railway Servants (Hours of Work and Period of Rest) Rules, 2005 and they have been granted OTA so far. It is only due to the Issue of modified roster which came into effect from 25.12.2011 and subsequently came into effect from 1.1.2012, there appears to be some change in payment of OTA and the applicants are granted extra hours of compensatory rest instead of OTA. In this regard it is relevant to peruse Rule 10 of Railway Servants (Hours of Work and Period of Rest) Rules, 2005, which reads as follows:-
Rule 10. Principle of averaging and payment of overtime allowance.
(1) Where a Railway servant is required to render extra hours of duty beyond the rostered hours fixed in accordance with rule 8 or beyond the limits specified for different classes of Railway servant under Section 132, he shall be paid Overtime for such extra hours of work, subject to the principle of averaging as specified in sub rule(2).
(2) Averaging shall be done by averaging of the hours of work over the averaging periods as specified in Section 132 which has been adopted to provide a reasonable measure of elasticity as essential in railway working for certain classes of Railway servants and it shall apply to-
(i) running staff
(ii) operation staff;
(iii) Shift workers; and
(iv) those other Railway servants whose work is connected with the work of any of the categories of railway servants mentioned in clauses(i), (ii) and (iii)....
(4) The hourly rate of
